1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates in general to bicycle training apparatus, and in particular to bicycle roller training apparatus.
2. Prior Art
In order to provide background information so that the invention may be completely understood and appreciated in its proper context, reference is made to the background of the field, and to a number of prior art patents as follows:
Bicycle rollers consist of three parallel drums on which a conventional bicycle is placed for the purpose of stationary exercise and training. Ideally, there is no positive connection between the bicycle rollers and the bicycle. While there are several types of apparatus in which one can use his conventional bicycle for stationary riding, rollers present the rider with a clear advantage over those types—that is, rollers most closely simulate non-stationary, outdoor riding by requiring the rider to balance and steer the bicycle. This is accomplished through the setup of the drums; the rear two drums are positioned such that the rear wheel of the bicycle is cradled, thereby resisting forward movement of the bicycle. The third, front drum is positioned directly under the front wheel, and is driven by a belt connected to the rear drums, thereby forcing it to spin. This spinning effect is what causes the rider to be able to balance the bicycle; i.e. the relative movement of the drums and bicycle is the same as that between road and bicycle for outdoor riding. S. A. Sturgis in U.S. Pat. No. 581,835 further describes these concepts.
Being able to balance and steer the bicycle during stationary training results in more realistic and enjoyable stationary riding, thereby providing encouragement for a continuing training program. It also results in improved bicycle handling skills. While these advantages over other training apparatus may be clear, many are hesitant to use bicycle rollers for training. This is due to two inherent drawbacks of such a system: 1) With conventional bicycle rollers, steering the bicycle too far to either side will result in the bicycle dropping off the ends of the drums. Since the bicycle wheels would be spinning at a rapid rate at this moment, upon contact with the adjacent floor the bicycle and rider would be propelled across the room, out of control, or the rider would simply tip over on his side, or both. 2) Reaching the ground when mounting or dismounting a bicycle can be difficult, due to the height of the bicycle's top horizontal tube, and the several inches of added height due to the bicycle rollers. Also, mounting and dismounting the bicycle has been rendered more difficult with the advent of the “clipless pedal system”. Such a widely adopted pedal system effectively hitches one's shoes to the pedals, resulting in more efficient pedal action. However, this system can make mounting and dismounting the bicycle a tricky endeavor.
The above drawbacks result in hesitancy in many bicyclists who have never tried to use rollers. It also is a concern of more experienced bicyclists, as prolonged riding on rollers can cause fatigue and momentary loss of concentration; even a very brief loss of concentration by an experienced rider can result in excessive sideways movement off the sides of the drums.
These drawbacks have been widely recognized, and many prior art patents have been developed as attempts at mitigation. All of these attempts have failed, either by not successfully mitigating the drawbacks, or by overly restricting the freedom of movement of the bicycle, thereby eliminating the main advantage of using rollers. Mitigation by the prior art generally falls within one of the following two categories: 1) limit the potential sideways movement of the bicycle, without restricting the balancing characteristics, and 2) limit the potential sideways movement of the bicycle while restricting the balancing characteristics. The former category is certainly the more desirable of the two; if successful, the patent would render the roller system safe, without infringing on its advantages. However, no patent has yet to succeed in this endeavor. Prevention of excess sideways movement of the bicycle wheels on the drums generally results in the added potential peril of the bicycle and its rider tipping over, rather than riding off the side; in essence, one drawback has been solved, but another has been created. The latter category has resulted from the lack of a solution to the former. However, restriction of the bicycle's balancing characteristics eliminates one of the major benefits of the rollers to begin with.
S. A. Sturges in U.S. Pat. No. 581,835 developed rollers with platforms alongside the roller drums, at the same level as the top of the drums. These platforms compensate for the raised height of the roller system, but do little more. While preventing the immediate drop-off of the bicycle to the floor upon excess sideways movement of the bicycle, the rider would still be propelled forward with this system, and the potential for tipping still exists. Therefore, this patent did not overcome the cited drawbacks.
L. F. Guignard in U.S. Pat. No. 463,862 developed concave drums (i.e., of a varying diameter, smaller at the center and larger at the outsides of the drums), which encourage the bicycle wheel to stay toward the center of the drums. These concave drums provide minimal protection from riding off the sides, restrict the freedom of movement of the bicycle, provide no protection against tipping, and offer no mounting or dismounting advantages.
G. W. Tarver in U.S. Pat. No. 602,546 added devices that connected the bicycle to the roller system, thereby restricting the bicycle's balancing characteristics.
H. W. Hapman in U.S. Pat. No. 2,534,967 used the combined effects of concave rollers and connection devices from the bicycle to the roller system, thereby restricting the bicycle's balancing characteristics.
L. M. Tabb in U.S. Pat. No. 3,905,597 provided platforms in an attempt to mitigate the mounting/dismounting drawback, but offered no solution to the disadvantage of riding laterally off of the drums.
J. R. Berkes (U.S. Pat. No. 4,082,265), S. Smith (U.S. Pat. No. 4,415,152), G. Cassini, F. Grassi, and R. Prevedelli (U.S. Pat. No. 4,580,983), S. Kim (U.S. Pat. No. 4,925,183), F. Defaux (U.S. Pat. No. 4,932,651), and O. Vasques (U.S. Pat. No. 5,662,559) all added devices that connected the bicycle to the roller system, similar to Tarver, but with the added benefit of not completely restricting the sideways movement of the bicycle. However, even this partial restriction is an undesirable effect for the rider, as it results in adversely effecting the freedom of the rider to balance the bicycle. Also, no attempt is made at mitigating the mounting/dismounting problems.
T. Werner (U.S. Pat. No. 6,500,098) took a somewhat different approach from most of the others, by refining the effects of Guignard's concave drums. Recognizing the disadvantage of varying drum diameter, Werner created a drum that is uniform in diameter over the wide mid-section of the drums, thereby eliminating the restriction of movement resulting from concave drums. Werner's drums increase sharply in diameter at their ends, thereby creating, in effect, a “stop” at these ends, preventing the bicycle from riding off the ends of the drums, and redirecting the wheels back toward the center of the drums. While this method best satisfies the desire to minimize the restriction of movement of the bicycle, it creates an additional undesirable effect; if the rider were to ride up against the ends of the drums, the lateral restriction of these “stops” would cause the rider to pivot outward about the base of the wheel, thereby tipping over on to the adjacent floor surface.
It can be seen from the above references that preference has been given by most inventors to restricting the sideways movement with attachments to the bicycle, at the expense of the freedom of movement that makes roller riding so enjoyable and beneficial. The remaining inventors have opted toward less restrictive means, but have not solved the inherent problems of the roller system. Attempts at effectively mitigating both of the cited drawbacks, while retaining all of the benefits of the roller system have failed in all cases.